I Am Displeased

[Sacrieur]

WotC and Paizo have me very irritated right now, because of one design choice that grinds my gears. I'm not salty because of these delicious potato chips that I'm eating, but because a spell we all know and love was put into the wrong school of magic.

The spell is Mage Armor.

For some inexplicable reason it's a Conjuration spell. But I guess it's a creation spell which is conjuration right? NO! Because Shield is also invisible force and it's an Abjuration spell.

I'm currently designing a class which works closely with Abjuration magic and this little thing pretty much ruined my day. Now I have to think of a way to incorporate a Conjuration spell into a class which is all about Abjuration magic because it's a very important spell!

ARGH!

Okay I'm all done venting... For now...

[Sayt]

Mage Armour's incompatibility with Abjurant Champion is one of the reasons I dip into Runesmith.

One workaround might be to phrase: "[...]abjuration spells and spells which increase Armour Class[...]". it grabs mage armour, but it also grabs magic Vestment, Barkskin and probably a few others. This might be a bit of an overreach, I'll that up to you.

[OldTrees1]

Good. Let out that steam.

But don't forget to change Mage Armor to Abjuration as part of this Abjuration Homebrew class you are Homebrewing. (Various ways you can do so include: Universally changing Mage Armor, making a slight variant of Mage Armor as a new spell, crib the changeling racial wizard substitution idea and change the school for the character only, ...)

[Rubik]

One workaround might be to phrase: "[...]abjuration spells and spells which increase Armour Class[...]". it grabs mage armour, but it also grabs magic Vestment, Barkskin and probably a few others.Like Polymorph, Alter Self, PAO, and Shapechange.


Good. Let out that steam.

But don't forget to change Mage Armor to Abjuration as part of this Abjuration Homebrew class you are Homebrewing. (Various ways you can do so include: Universally changing Mage Armor, making a slight variant of Mage Armor as a new spell, crib the changeling racial wizard substitution idea and change the school for the character only, ...)"You count Mage Armor as an abjuration spell..."

[tomandtish]

....For some inexplicable reason it's a Conjuration spell. But I guess it's a creation spell which is conjuration right? NO! Because Shield is also invisible force and it's an Abjuration spell.


Part of the reason may be that shield is not just invisible force. It's invisible force with a negation effect (magic missiles). So it's not that Mage Armor is misclassified. it's that Shield can go in two schools, and they put it in abjuration because of the negation effect.

Now, whether you agree with that decision...

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Just use (Greater) Luminous Armor from BoED. It's an abjuration, and it's a better spell than Mage Armor.

[SangoProduction]

So it's not that Mage Armor is misclassified.


Abjurations are protective spells. They create physical or magical barriers, negate magical or physical abilities, harm trespassers, or even banish the subject of the spell to another plane of existence.

Abjuration
Spells that protect, block, or banish. An abjuration specialist is called an abjurer.

Emphasis mine.


Conjuration
Spells that bring creatures or materials to the caster.

Well, force isn't a material, it's an energy, so really it should be evocation, much more than it is conjuration...but since it's specifically for protection, it should fall under the purview of Abjuration

[Dusk Raven]

I think this all is a good reason why I tend to dislike "schools of magic" and why such divisions are either very basic or nonexistent in my own (non-D&D) settings... when I divide magic into categories, it tends to be based on how they're created and not what they actually do. Wizards as opposed to Sorcerers, for instance.

Unfortunately, I am not in charge of creating schools of magic for tabletop games. I hadn't even noticed the oddity you mentioned - I was mostly irked by Cure spells being Creation (healing) while Inflict spells are straight-up Necromancy. As it stands, spells that alter the body can go into a number of schools (generally Transmutation and Necromancy) depending on your interpretation.

At the same time, I seem to recall the schools for psionics being rather clear-cut and all the powers in each category made sense only in that category. So I dunno what's going on over at WotC or Paizo.

[oxybe]

Abjurations are protective spells. They create physical or magical barriers, negate magical or physical abilities, harm trespassers, or even banish the subject of the spell to another plane of existence.

Oh wiki, go home, you're drunk: wall of force (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/wallOfForce.html)is evocation so clearly you're... oh. no wait, you're not wrong (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/coreRulebook/magic.html) (just CTRL+F for abjuration).


Abjurations are protective spells. They create physical or magical barriers, negate magical or physical abilities, harm trespassers, or even banish the subject of the spell to another plane of existence.

So it seems that Paizo just CTRL +C/V WotC's description (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#abjuration)(which i'm taking from d20srd.org as the one in the book i don't have on hand at the moment).

Then again, They also both put healing and revival spells into the Conjuration category even though Necromancy (to quote both Paizo and WotC):

Necromancy spells manipulate the power of death, unlife, and the life force
because reasons?

[SangoProduction]

Then again, They also both put healing and revival spells into the Conjuration category even though Necromancy (to quote both Paizo and WotC):

because reasons?

Because they didn't want their sweet little priests using necromancy when they are "Good"?
Best I can come up with.

[Florian]

Nah. If they wanted that effect, they'd plastered the spells with [Good] and [Evil] descriptors.
If I were to venture a guess, I'd say they wanted to avoid the confusion (and possible discussion) why Necromancers would be the best healers. Too much controversy.

[Tiri]

Exactly. They couldn't have necromancers (who are usually evil) being good at healing, because healing is good.

[Rubik]

Exactly. They couldn't have necromancers (who are usually evil) being good at healing, because healing is good.Is that your opinion or your thoughts on WotC's? Because you would be appalled at just how much evil can be committed with the aid of healing magic.

[Florian]

Is that your opinion or your thoughts on WotC's? Because you would be appalled at just how much evil can be committed with the aid of healing magic.

It's what I remember from dev talks and Q&A from the early period of 3E.

And no, stuff like doing more hardcore torture by providing healing/fast healing was never seen as a thing coming up in the game, I guess.

[Necroticplague]

Is that your opinion or your thoughts on WotC's? Because you would be appalled at just how much evil can be committed with the aid of healing magic.

See also: the BoVD iron maiden of at-will CLW (well, technically, just 'every round').

[Florian]

As for Mage Armour... Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't that spell actually summon a set of "real" armour for the caster? It may have lost that specific piece of fluff, but I think that's why its been shunted into Conjuration.

[Rubik]

It's what I remember from dev talks and Q&A from the early period of 3E.

And no, stuff like doing more hardcore torture by providing healing/fast healing was never seen as a thing coming up in the game, I guess.I'm pretty sure that Cure X Wounds spells were necromancy in 3.0 -- the same 3.0 that had the Book of Vile Darkness. It became Conjuration in 3.5, after BoVD's torture instruments with Cure spells attached. (See Necroticplague's above post for details.)

[Karnith]

I'm pretty sure that Cure X Wounds spells were necromancy in 3.0 -- the same 3.0 that had the Book of Vile Darkness. It became Conjuration in 3.5, after BoVD's torture instruments with Cure spells attached. (See Necroticplague's above post for details.)
Nah, the Cure X spells have always been Conjuration (Healing) in 3E. They were Necromancy in prior editions, though.

And Cure spells as Conjuration (Healing) can make sense, insofar as you are creating matter to replace the blood/tissue/etc. lost due to injuries, it's just that it doesn't make any sense in the D&D paradigm of healing by channeling positive energy.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Conjuration also has interplanar travel and summoning, and positive energy is from another plane.

[oxybe]

Nah, the Cure X spells have always been Conjuration (Healing) in 3E. They were Necromancy in prior editions, though.

And Cure spells as Conjuration (Healing) can make sense, insofar as you are creating matter to replace the blood/tissue/etc. lost due to injuries, it's just that it doesn't make any sense in the D&D paradigm of healing by channeling positive energy.

actually, they were in the healing sphere of clerical magic in 2nd ed. I would need to check out what it says for bardic spells, but in 2nd clerics didn't have schools.

Here is my take on the evils of the cure light wound potion (https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/3ratcq/can_a_character_not_an_undead_drown_in_healing/cwmgsvi).

as for "evil with magic" when you can warp reality, yes you can do some pretty horrible stuff.

After an minor villainess got up in our business, my witch in our now finished pathfinder game decided to use Vision of Doom (which in addition to acting like a more powerful version of Nightmare, it allows you to ride certain spells regardless of distance... like flesh to stone). So later in the session I was rather pleased when I got myself a rather interesting lawn ornament.

That I quickly scrubbed the mouth off.

Yes Nisha wasn't a nice person, but in her defense the villainess threatened the country Nisha was rather fond of with threats of large cloudkill fogbanks (we guessed it was a bluff but prepped for the worst, it was a trap made to distract us but we were ready for and none of us were happy with her). The peasantry might not love Nisha but they accepted her.

You do not **** with a CE person who loves her country & it's people, is known for commanding swarms of angry wasps and has a penchant for summoning demonic dinosaurs (that was the line our group's cleric, and party face, drew. she was none too pleased with the bone devil i summoned that one time... bone devil had fun though which for me is what counted. demonic triceratops, though, she was "ok" with) and calling down storms on people who anger her.

then again "throw beam of cold", "face-melting loogies" and "flamethrower fingers" are all considered rather basic entry-level spells.

imagining the suffering someone could do when they can create concentrated rays of cold intense enough to harm but not kill, lob fistfuls of acid that has potential to grevious bodily harm and expel a sudden gout of fire hot enough to kill a man or four.

then again, there are still a lot of mundane methods of torture you can do.

D&D allows someone with a mean streak to be creative.

[Heliomance]

Conjuration also has interplanar travel and summoning, and positive energy is from another plane.
So is negative energy, but the Inflict spells aren't conjuration.

Yeah, there's several mis-schooled spells around. Mage Armour should be Abjuration, the Cure line should be Necromancy, and the Orbs SHOULD REALLY FREAKING BE EVOCATION.

[Necroticplague]

Conjuration also has interplanar travel and summoning, and positive energy is from another plane.

By that logic, Inflict (and actually, most of Necromancy) should be Conjuration, because Negative energy is also from another plane. And most of Evocation, because the planar energies that are used in a lot of Evocation spells are from non-prime planes (so....near everything that isn't [force]). And so should spells of the Shadow subschool, because they bring in energy from the Shadow Plane.

[nyjastul69]

So is negative energy, but the Inflict spells aren't conjuration.

Yeah, there's several mis-schooled spells around. Mage Armour should be Abjuration, the Cure line should be Necromancy, and the Orbs SHOULD REALLY FREAKING BE EVOCATION.

I agree that the orb line should be evocation. IIRC, they were in 3.0. I'd leave orb of acid as conjuration though.

[Rubik]

Unfortunately, swapping the Orb spells to Evocation would be a really annoying nerf. Evocation, by its very nature, is worse than Conjuration, if only due to the "instantaneous Conjurations persist in an Antimagic Field or dead magic zone" clause.

Even if Evocation had lots of awesome spells, Conjuration would still be better, by definition.

[Heliomance]

Unfortunately, swapping the Orb spells to Evocation would be a really annoying nerf. Evocation, by its very nature, is worse than Conjuration, if only due to the "instantaneous Conjurations persist in an Antimagic Field or dead magic zone" clause.

Even if Evocation had lots of awesome spells, Conjuration would still be better, by definition.

That's exactly why they should be moved to Evocation. Those spells, by themselves, make the entirety of the Evocation school (with the exception of Contingency) utterly pointless.

Evocation is supposed to be the blasting school. Conjuration should not have spells that blast better than Evocation. Instantaneous Conjuration spells persist in an antimagic field because it makes no sense to vanish a Wall of Stone with antimagic - that rule was never intended to apply to blasting spells. The Orb line completely flies in the face of the design philosophy - SR is supposed to apply to blasting. You should have to work around that, not just go "Oh hey, these spells ignore SR and antimagic, and they're better than any of the Evocation spells anyway even without that!"

[Psyren]

Just use (Greater) Luminous Armor from BoED. It's an abjuration, and it's a better spell than Mage Armor.

Came here to suggest this. Or just design the class in such a way that Mage Armor works with whatever it's trying to do, it shouldn't take too much legalese.

[Chronos]

Actually, in 2nd edition, priestly spells had both a sphere and a school, though (like in 3rd edition) the school was almost never relevant. Cure Light Wounds and Heal were in the necromancy school and the healing sphere. Raise Dead, meanwhile, was in the Necromancy school and the Necromantic sphere (and likewise for Regenerate, Reincarnate, Restoration, and Resurrection).

Personally, I don't think the Abjuration school makes sense at all. "Spells that protect" is an awfully loose categorization. It would make much more sense to put those spells into schools based on what they protect against, and how. Thus, for instance, Protection from Fire should be evocation, Death Ward should be necromancy, and a spell that protects against summoned creatures should be conjuration.

[ExLibrisMortis]

By that logic, Inflict (and actually, most of Necromancy) should be Conjuration, because Negative energy is also from another plane. And most of Evocation, because the planar energies that are used in a lot of Evocation spells are from non-prime planes (so....near everything that isn't [force]). And so should spells of the Shadow subschool, because they bring in energy from the Shadow Plane.
Inflict certainly should be in the same school as cure, simply because they're the same thing but opposites. For the other spells, it's about how much you do with the energy afterwards. I figure a lot of spells use a little of this and a little of that, and it's only the main component that determines the school. Cure and inflict are pretty much 'sling energy at target' - you don't need to focus it at all, even just being on the relevant plane is enough to get the same effect. Animate dead and waves of fatigue are a lot more specific, they require particular focus.

Of course, necromancy is still a weird hacked-together school, a merger of conjuration, evocation, and transmutation, but dark and evulz.


Personally, I don't think the Abjuration school makes sense at all. "Spells that protect" is an awfully loose categorization. It would make much more sense to put those spells into schools based on what they protect against, and how. Thus, for instance, Protection from Fire should be evocation, Death Ward should be necromancy, and a spell that protects against summoned creatures should be conjuration.
'Pure' abjuration includes a lot of specific antimagic spells, that don't work on non-magical targets at all, like the protection from summoned creatures (not the other two, of course). I think that's a worthwhile school, but I do agree that it's used as an excuse to throw anything vaguely defensive in there. Shield doesn't particularly make sense for an abjuration, given that it works primarily versus non-magical attacks.


Edit: You could make Abjuration the school about manipulating magic, by adding contingency, permanency and such.

[Psyren]

Personally, I don't think the Abjuration school makes sense at all. "Spells that protect" is an awfully loose categorization. It would make much more sense to put those spells into schools based on what they protect against, and how. Thus, for instance, Protection from Fire should be evocation, Death Ward should be necromancy, and a spell that protects against summoned creatures should be conjuration.

I agree, and this is pretty much how psionics does it. Most of the general abjurations (i.e. things that aren't specific defenses against other schools, like Death Ward or Mind Blank) could probably fit under Evocation. This would also have the desirable side-effect of making schools like Enchantment, Necromancy and Evocation stronger than they currently are.

[nedz]

It is possible to create fluff to put any spell into any school, which sort of implies that the rationales behind the schools themselves are somewhat fluffy.

So is negative energy, but the Inflict spells aren't conjuration.

Yeah, there's several mis-schooled spells around. Mage Armour should be Abjuration, the Cure line should be Necromancy, and the Orbs SHOULD REALLY FREAKING BE EVOCATION.

Because Conjuration is overloaded I moved Mage Armour into Abjuration and the Orbs into Evocation.

I didn't bother moving the healing line back into Necromancy, because it's not really an issue. They should be in the same school as the Inflicts though and arguable that should be Evocation too. 3.5 has a number of issues around positive and negative energy and healing and inflict spells not following the same pattern as other energies. If you look at the standard model of the planes then you should be able to make negative and positive Orbs; Force and Sonic though, perhaps not. Negative arcane spells are always riders rather than damage, and positive ones are positively rare.

[SangoProduction]

That's exactly why they should be moved to Evocation. Those spells, by themselves, make the entirety of the Evocation school (with the exception of Contingency) utterly pointless.

Evocation is supposed to be the blasting school. Conjuration should not have spells that blast better than Evocation. Instantaneous Conjuration spells persist in an antimagic field because it makes no sense to vanish a Wall of Stone with antimagic - that rule was never intended to apply to blasting spells. The Orb line completely flies in the face of the design philosophy - SR is supposed to apply to blasting. You should have to work around that, not just go "Oh hey, these spells ignore SR and antimagic, and they're better than any of the Evocation spells anyway even without that!"

Just a nit pick. Evocation isn't blasting. It is energy. Else the rock throwing spell would be evocation, and Light wouldn't be evocation.
Of course, that means I agree with orbs being Evocation.

There's the overlap with Evocation's Energy manipulation, and Necromancy....but as Necromancy is the most specific, I'd say that it falls under Necromancy.

[Segev]

It is quite reasonable to house rule mage armor into Abjuration.


The suggestion of making a level-1 armor spell that is Abjuration school but not mage armor got me thinking, though. What could make it sufficiently different, but still equally useful?

Runic Armor
Abjuration
Level: Sor/Wiz 1
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 1 minute
Range: Touch
Target: Creature touched
Duration: One day
Saving Throw: Will negates (harmless)
Spell Resistance: Yes

Tracing runes around the target's exposed surfaces, you create a protective barrier which strengthens against weapons of all sorts, save those wielded by creatures of a specific alignment. This barrier provides a +4 armor bonus to the target's AC, as well as DR equal to the caster level of the spell which is penetrated by the named alignment. Any creature having at least one of its alignment components in accord with the named alignment can ignore this spell's protections entirely.

The material component is the substance with which the runes are painted. Blood provides protection against all save those of evil alignment. Ash provides protection against all save those of good alignment. Ink only fails against those of lawful alignment, while colored wax fails only against those who are chaotic. Finally, if the protection is to apply against all save those with a Neutral component to their alignment, the runes should be painted in mud.

[Psyren]

For the record, I'm fine with conjuration having some blasting. But I agree with Heliomance, they shouldn't be better at it than Evocation is. It should be a backup option for conjurors (or other folks who banned evocation) who need to pull out some direct damage in a pinch, and it should be less efficient. Maybe d4/level or d6/2 levels.

[torrasque666]

Just a nit pick. Evocation isn't blasting. It is energy. Else the rock throwing spell would be evocation, and Light wouldn't be evocation.
Of course, that means I agree with orbs being Evocation.

There's the overlap with Evocation's Energy manipulation, and Necromancy....but as Necromancy is the most specific, I'd say that it falls under Necromancy.
Well to be fair, when they think of "blasting" most people think along the lines of "energy blasts" or "kinetic force" rather than the terminology used here and on other forums, where it means "direct damage application". So yes, Evocation should be "blasting" in the popular sense, rather than the terminological sense.

[Dusk Raven]

Unfortunately, swapping the Orb spells to Evocation would be a really annoying nerf. Evocation, by its very nature, is worse than Conjuration, if only due to the "instantaneous Conjurations persist in an Antimagic Field or dead magic zone" clause.

Aren't the Orb spells really overpowered, though? I've considered banning them from my campaigns, personally.



Anyway, for quite some time I haven't really understood D&D 3.5's system of magical schools, and it seems I was correct to do so. There's no way to have Cure and Inflict spells be equal but opposite without having them in the same school, but that's just for starters. Why is Light an Evocation spell but Color Spray is an Illusion spell? As for schools, Necromancy seems like a melting pot of all manner of negative effects (what the hell does Cause Fear have to do with manipulating life force? Or Astral Projection?), and Abjuration mixes protection effects with disruptive effects like Dispel and Antimagic Field.

I'm beginning to think maybe we in the Playground should come up with our own list of schools...

[ExLibrisMortis]

Orb spells are not at all overpowered. They're good metamagic seeds, and they are useful in high-OP environments*, because they ignore certain defences that can be insurmountably high in a game with optimized monsters. The original mailman thread referred to vampires with vests of resistance +5, which are hard to affect with save-or-suffer spells, encouraging the focus on direct damage SR:No-Save:No-spells. An orb of fire at CL 15 deals 15d6 damage, and that average of 52.5 damage is not very impressive, given that the leap attack shock trooper deals 45 damage from power attack alone, and that three or four times per full attack (barring accuracy issues). It's only when metamagic - and specifically metamagic cost reducers - come into play, that orbs, or any damaging spell, really start to compete with überchargers for highest damage output.


*Not quite so high-OP that everybody is immune to damage, of course.

[Chronos]

I occasionally toy with a homebrew idea for a magic system where there are five main schools: Energy, matter, metamagic, mind, and life. Energy would cover the standard blasting spells like Fireball, but would also have flight, telekinesis, and the like, as well as bringing forth fire and air elementals. Matter would include the transmutation-type spells that work on inanimate objects, conjuration of objects, and teleportation, plus earth and water elementals. Metamagic is Dispel Magic and the like, plus utility things like transferring power to another spellcaster and putting magical effects into potions, wands, and the like. Mind would include divination, enchantment, illusions, and alignment-based effects (including calling angels and demons). Life includes healing, necromancy, summoning animals, and polymorphs.

[Segev]

I 'get' that the orb spells are SR:no because they're "creating real fire/acid/ice/electricity," but they really aren't. Real instances of those things don't behave as those spells describe. They're really mis-placed evocations with an overpowered immunity to SR.

The whole point of SR being variable whether it protects or not is to prevent things that don't make sense from happening. No immunity to falling into mud that's suddenly appeared beneath you, nor to being trapped in stone that mud in which you were submerged suddenly became. No immunity to being burned by fire that has been ignited by magic but is now burning mundanely on that oil that's all over the place. No immunity to the claws of that griffon just because it was polymorphed from a fighter. But there's no functional difference between Evoked and Conjured fire or lightning or acid, when they don't leave behind anything and they don't behave any differently. If you can ignore magic fire, you should ignore magic fire, even if it claims it's "conjured" rather than "evoked."

They're canon, but they're abusing a loophole in the description of how the rules are supposed to work; they're an example of the writers playing rules lawyer, rather than trying to write rules that make sense.

[Curmudgeon]

Aren't the Orb spells really overpowered, though? I've considered banning them from my campaigns, personally.
My technique to address this (and related issues) is to make Damage Reduction apply to spell attacks the way it applies to other attacks. Most spells use touch attacks* rather than regular attacks, so they've already got a boost to hit. They shouldn't also get a free bypass to DR to always deal full damage.


* - Yes, I've also got a house rule for this issue: shield bonus applies to touch attacks. The rationale is that you've got to touch the target, not their shield, and the shield gets in the way.

[nedz]

I 'get' that the orb spells are SR:no because they're "creating real fire/acid/ice/electricity," but they really aren't. Real instances of those things don't behave as those spells describe. They're really mis-placed evocations with an overpowered immunity to SR.

The whole point of SR being variable whether it protects or not is to prevent things that don't make sense from happening. No immunity to falling into mud that's suddenly appeared beneath you, nor to being trapped in stone that mud in which you were submerged suddenly became. No immunity to being burned by fire that has been ignited by magic but is now burning mundanely on that oil that's all over the place. No immunity to the claws of that griffon just because it was polymorphed from a fighter. But there's no functional difference between Evoked and Conjured fire or lightning or acid, when they don't leave behind anything and they don't behave any differently. If you can ignore magic fire, you should ignore magic fire, even if it claims it's "conjured" rather than "evoked."

They're canon, but they're abusing a loophole in the description of how the rules are supposed to work; they're an example of the writers playing rules lawyer, rather than trying to write rules that make sense.

They also ignore anti magic fields.

[Triskavanski]

I have similar issues with other things that are in catagories that are not normally brought up or worreid about that much. Like the new weapon masters book bringing more emphisis on weapon catagories, and having weapon training but not being able to use things that function almost exactly like weapon training (APG fighter archetypes are bad with this) or other class features.

And I do have that issue with the mage armor as well, as I'm working on an abjurant champaion in another game.

[Sayt]

Like Polymorph, Alter Self, PAO, and Shapechange.

Ahhh Cripes, that's true... I'm more used to pathfinder, where those spells are...significantly less problematic.

[Rubik]

I occasionally toy with a homebrew idea for a magic system where there are five main schools: Energy, matter, metamagic, mind, and life. Energy would cover the standard blasting spells like Fireball, but would also have flight, telekinesis, and the like, as well as bringing forth fire and air elementals. Matter would include the transmutation-type spells that work on inanimate objects, conjuration of objects, and teleportation, plus earth and water elementals. Metamagic is Dispel Magic and the like, plus utility things like transferring power to another spellcaster and putting magical effects into potions, wands, and the like. Mind would include divination, enchantment, illusions, and alignment-based effects (including calling angels and demons). Life includes healing, necromancy, summoning animals, and polymorphs.Sounds like psionic disciplines with different names.

Psychokinesis, Metacreativity, Clairsentience, Psychoportation, Telepathy, and Psychometabolism.

Slightly different groupings, but they fulfil alll the basic roles, with very, very little overlap.

[torrasque666]

Like Polymorph, Alter Self, PAO, and Shapechange.
Ehh.... less so. Unlike Mage Armor or Shield or (Greater) Luminous Armor which give a direct bonus from their effect, Polymorph and the like give their bonus from a rider (the natural armor/dex bonus of the new form).

Basically, there's a slight difference between getting a new form with better armor, and getting a magical armor effect.

[Rubik]

Ehh.... less so. Unlike Mage Armor or Shield or (Greater) Luminous Armor which give a direct bonus from their effect, Polymorph and the like give their bonus from a rider (the natural armor/dex bonus of the new form).

Basically, there's a slight difference between getting a new form with better armor, and getting a magical armor effect.So you're saying those spells do not grant you bonuses to your AC.

[torrasque666]

So you're saying those spells do not grant you bonuses to your AC.
Not directly, no. The spells themselves do not grant any sort of bonus to AC.

[Rubik]

Not directly, no. The spells themselves do not grant any sort of bonus to AC....despite explicitly stating that they grant you natural armor bonuses to your AC.

That makes total sense. :smallsigh:

[Âmesang]

I'm reminded of trying to convert Slerotin's Fortitude over from 2nd Edition and having to decide which of it's two schools it should keep: abjuration or alteration (transmutation). Having never played 2nd the thought of having a spell under two schools blew my mind. :smalltongue:

I eventually settled on transmutation because the LIVING GREYHAWK® Gazetteer suggested that Suel spellcasters are often well-versed in it, and because the spell starts with the line, "by means of this spell, the caster can alter the molecular structure of nonmagical, inorganic matter so as to make it impervious to harm from both physical and magical attacks."

(Of course if there's a more official update to it, I'd happily use it.)

[torrasque666]

...despite explicitly stating that they grant you natural armor bonuses to your AC.

That makes total sense. :smallsigh:
Are we talking 3.5 or Pathfinder? Because in 3.5 the spell itself does not grant you any Armor Bonus. Whatever form you take may do so, but the spell itself does not. For example:
Aasimar alters self into Formian Worker, gains 4 natural armor.
Aasimar alters self into Tiefling, gains no natural armor since the Tiefling doesn't have any.

Its a subtle, semantic difference. But it's enough to count as different from "spell that gives you armor bonus" as its the form that grants it, not the spell.

[Rubik]

Are we talking 3.5 or Pathfinder? Because in 3.5 the spell itself does not grant you any Armor Bonus. Whatever form you take may do so, but the spell itself does not. For example:
Aasimar alters self into Formian Worker, gains 4 natural armor.
Aasimar alters self into Tiefling, gains no natural armor since the Tiefling doesn't have any.

Its a subtle, semantic difference. But it's enough to count as different from "spell that gives you armor bonus" as its the form that grants it, not the spell.If the spells didn't grant AC bonuses, then AC bonuses wouldn't be listed in the things the spells give you from the forms you can take.

[elonin]

I'm guessing that if the spells were relocated there would be more of a mismatch than there already is with many of the good spells going into conjuration. I would throw my opinion behind putting the orb spells with evocation just because as it exists there it is so easy to prohibit that school, as well as being 1/2 between evocation and conjuration.

[Dusk Raven]

If the spells didn't grant AC bonuses, then AC bonuses wouldn't be listed in the things the spells give you from the forms you can take.

Semantics.

Point is, polymorphing does not automatically give you AC - you have to polymorph into something that has natural armor. Or a size bonus to AC, I guess. It's subtle, but I guess bonuses to AC are a consequence and not a property of Polymorph. Just in case the distinction matters.

[Necroticplague]

Counterpoint: Shield and Mage Armor can also fail to give you bonuses to AC if you already possess the bonus (Say, wearing a tower shield and plate mail).

[torrasque666]

Counterpoint: Shield and Mage Armor can also fail to give you bonuses to AC if you already possess the bonus (Say, wearing a tower shield and plate mail).
Technically, they still provide the bonus, its just overridden by the stacking rules.

[P.F.]

"Spells that grant a bonus to AC" can indeed to be interpreted as including spells which mention AC bonuses as something you get from your new form, including things like reduce person which is clearly not part of the protection theme. I can't fathom why mage armour is a conjuration, as it has none of the hallmarks of conjurations and qualities of an evocation or abjuration. My guess is that the defensive spells were intentionally smattered between different schools.

Obviously the orb spells should be evocations; they are a rather transparent blending of all the best properties of both evocation and conjuration. In core, the evocations (broadly speaking) tend to be higher-damage, scaled-to-caster-level, easily targeted, direct effect spells, and must check for spell resistance. Conjurations, by contrast, tend to be lower-damage, non-scaling, unwieldy, indirect spells, and avoid spell resistance. The orbs are the only spells in the game that give the higher-damage, easily targeted, direct attacks and deny both saving throw and spell resistance.

[Abithrios]

Not directly, no. The spells themselves do not grant any sort of bonus to AC.


...despite explicitly stating that they grant you natural armor bonuses to your AC.

That makes total sense. :smallsigh:

I would probably go with a vaguer definition than you are arguing about. The primary purpose of mage armor is defensive.

Polymorph does not have such a singular purpose. You can also use it to turn into a hydra and eat seven people at once. Or to turn into a bird to fly to a high window of a tower. Or to disguise yourself. It has a wide variety of uses, and the only thing that unifies then is that you are turning into something. There is a separate school for that.

[DarkSoul]

If the spells didn't grant AC bonuses, then AC bonuses wouldn't be listed in the things the spells give you from the forms you can take.

Again, as torrasque666 asked, is this a 3.5 issue or a Pathfinder issue? In 3.5, polymorph makes no reference to functioning as other spells, nor does it explicitly give any numeric bonus to AC. In a 3.5 game, changing the OP's class idea to work with anything that provides a numeric bonus to AC would rule out polymorph. In Pathfinder, the best course (and arguably the simplest course for 3.5 too) would be to change the spells causing problems to Abjuration or make specific mention of them in the class idea.

I noticed the same thing about the conjuration protective spells in 3.5 and made the "numeric bonus" call for my games whenever it matters (Abjurant Champion).

[Rubik]

Again, as torrasque666 asked, is this a 3.5 issue or a Pathfinder issue? In 3.5, polymorph makes no reference to functioning as other spells, nor does it explicitly give any numeric bonus to AC. In a 3.5 game, changing the OP's class idea to work with anything that provides a numeric bonus to AC would rule out polymorph.3.5's Polymorph and those spells based on it refer to Alter Self as to what benefits they provide, and Alter Self grants AC bonuses from the forms you choose to emulate.

[xyianth]

I can see the argument that orb of acid could be conjuration, but the rest of the orb spells are absolutely incorrectly classified evocations. I always thought that someone somewhere decided that conjuration and transmutation were totally the best schools and just decided to throw the best stuff into those.

In my opinion, wall of force, forcecage, shield, mage armor, and any other force based defense/barrier spells should have been abjuration/evocation; teleportation and calling spells should be its own school; all of the healing spells belong in necromancy; and a significant number of transmutation spells should be moved into other schools. (fly and knock into evocation, rope trick into the teleportation/calling school, slow/haste/time stop into enchantment, etc...) This would significantly improve the balance between the schools and make specialists in things other than conjuration/transmutation an actual thing. Right now, the only reasons you pick something else is for a specific prestige class or to prove a point/win a bet/"challenge" yourself.

[P.F.]

I can see the argument that orb of acid could be conjuration, but the rest of the orb spells are absolutely incorrectly classified evocations. I always thought that someone somewhere decided that conjuration and transmutation were totally the best schools and just decided to throw the best stuff into those.

It's because conjurations have the best metagame spell properties. Conjuration is the 'SR: No' school for the same reason that instantaneous conjurations are not blocked by antimagic fields--once it's been conjured, it's just an ordinary, nonmagical cloud of fog or acid arrow or whatever.

[bekeleven]

I think this all is a good reason why I tend to dislike "schools of magic" and why such divisions are either very basic or nonexistent in my own (non-D&D) settings... when I divide magic into categories, it tends to be based on how they're created and not what they actually do. Wizards as opposed to Sorcerers, for instance.
The issue is that spell schools are half based on how the magic works and half on what the spells do, with abjuration being further towards the latter than any other school of magic:

Abjuration: Spells that protect you, in almost any way. Entirely based around effect.

Conjuration: Spells that summon or create matter/creatures. Although, as we're seeing in this thread, maybe not if that matter goes on to explode or gets imparted with a high velocity.

Divination: Spells for remote viewing and precognition. Actually rather balanced and limited, Divination has few spells, but they tend to be staples. The issue is that you can say "Because of precognition, good thing X" and X turns into something like Divine Insight.

Enchantment: Spells that manipulate minds. Mostly limited, specifically in ways that harm the school's usefulness, although there are weird exceptions like Freezing Glance that shouldn't share the weaknesses of the class (or perhaps should be transmutation). Oh, and enchantment can give bonuses to stuff too (Focusing Chant, Hero's Feast).

Evocation: Spells that create/manipulate raw magical energies or force. Or sometimes fire/ice/earth/air/etc, because can't have conjuration have all of it. (In-universe question: Does the fireball spell summon fire, or does raw energy just turn into fire? Why isn't fireball a force effect? Out-of-universe question: Would all evocation effects being force effects help balance the school?)

Illusion: Doing stuff that isn't really stuff. Except that a lot of it does stuff, like literally kill people, or duplicate swaths of other spell effects.

Necromancy: Spells that directly manipulate life energies. Except when that would be too good, like cure spells. Necromancy is based around evil "theming" as much as it is this core concept much of the time.

Transmutation: Spells that change stuff. Except if it makes you safer (Glorious Raiment), that's Abjuration, unless it's not (Hardening). Except when you change nothing into something, that's conjuration, except when it's not (Gutsnake). Or except when it changes you to find things out, which is Divination, unless it changes your eyes like Dragonsight, which is transmutation, unless it's not (Fiendish Clarity). Except when it changes people's relation to energy... Pop quiz: what school is Dragon Breath? Or, of course, when it changes their "life energy"... which things like Spell-Pact do not... and things like Dehydrate do.

The TL;DR is that yes, the schools are arbitrary. They sort of work. They work well enough to hang some trappings on it and pass the glance test. But nuts and bolts, yeah, arbitrary.

Transmutation can do anything as long as that thing requires some form of action, because it can just change you to be able to do the action. Divination can do anything so long as that thing is a thing people can do, because no matter how unlikely, you foresaw the way to do it. Conjuration can do anything to anyone as long as that person isn't in a vacuum, because people not in a vacuum are surrounded by the world and you just just replace the world around them with a new world. Necromancy can do anything, so long as it's anything that's done to a person, and seems kinda sketchy. Enchantment can to anything to anyone so long as a bunch of immunities aren't involved. Illusion can do anything, but usually offers a saving throw.

Evocation seems like a bad school, but that's only because Wizards of the Coast was too busy making spells for other schools to realize that "make energy from nothing" can also do anything if only they try (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?370311-Fixing-Evocation-Over-100-spells).

When making spells, WotC needed to decide if the schools were flavor distinctions or mechanical distinctions because they're plainly unable to have both.

[Sacrieur]

The problem is that good design practice means that reclassifying the spell is off the table. It's a sloppy way to do it, but it's the right approach (fixing the source of the problem rather than working around it). The Abjurant Champion is a good example of the wrong approach.

There were some good ideas here. Among them were creating a new spell or using an existing but similar spell.

[erok0809]

I don't have a good reason for orb of force to be conjuration other than for consistency, but if you consider that the orb spells that aren't acid say, "this spell functions like orb of acid, except it deals *type* damage" you could make the argument that the orb spells that aren't acid still produce acid, they just make special acid that deals different types of damage. If you fluff it that way, it can be nonmagical "special acid" that's conjured, and so conjuration works. Still nothing for orb of force though, since it doesn't share that same language; that one should still be evocation.

[OldTrees1]

The problem is that good design practice means that reclassifying the spell is off the table. It's a sloppy way to do it, but it's the right approach (fixing the source of the problem rather than working around it). The Abjurant Champion is a good example of the wrong approach.

There were some good ideas here. Among them were creating a new spell or using an existing but similar spell.

I am curious what about reclassifying the spell you find sloppy(from a game design perspective).

[Sacrieur]

I am curious what about reclassifying the spell you find sloppy(from a game design perspective).

It's sloppy because it's a quick-fix that could lead to several problems. It may not necessarily lead to a problem, but it could. This occurs whenever you reclassify or attempt to rewrite existing content because of access. What I mean by "access" is that you aren't entirely sure what accesses the existing content and how reclassifying it could affect that content if they were to dip into your class. You want to maximize compatibility and control over abuse. You never want to find yourself having to include numerous exception clauses (and hope you cover them all) or have to include extra stuff just to make your class compatible with anything else (and also hope you cover everything). Both of which are very likely scenarios.

A better method would to use the existing content as a template for a new ability (e.g., "this functions like mage armor except where noted here") or creating a new source (e.g., a new abjuration spell called ablative armor). Both of these methods solve the problem, so long as they're done correctly. For instance if I wanted to make a new abjuration spell:

Reactive Armor
School abjuration [force]; Level sorcerer/wizard 1
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, F (a small plate of iron)
Range personal
Target you
Duration 1 hour/level (D)

An invisible plate of force shifts over your body, providing a +2 armor bonus to AC.

For every two levels beyond 1st, you gain an additional plate, increasing the armor bonus -- +4 at 3rd, and a maximum of +6 at 5th level or higher.

---

This would follow good spell design and work as an abjuration spell for the purposes of the class.

[OldTrees1]

It's sloppy because it's a quick-fix that could lead to several problems. It may not necessarily lead to a problem, but it could. This occurs whenever you reclassify or attempt to rewrite existing content because of access. What I mean by "access" is that you aren't entirely sure what accesses the existing content and how reclassifying it could affect that content if they were to dip into your class. You want to maximize compatibility and control over abuse. You never want to find yourself having to include numerous exception clauses (and hope you cover them all) or have to include extra stuff just to make your class compatible with anything else (and also hope you cover everything). Both of which are very likely scenarios.


Ah, so you are describing how any changes to "material X" also changes everything that references "material X". For example if one changes Alternate Form or Alter Self then that change could also effect Wild Shape(references Alternate Form), Polymorph(references Alter Self), and Warshaper(references both Wild Shape and Polymorph). Thus good design dictates that changes made to "material X" are only made with the full knowledge of everything that references "material X". This gets increasingly harder as the number of potential references increases. Once the probability of a mistake grows large enough, it is easier and safer to find another solution (possibly even in spite of other factors like treating symptom vs curing causes).

[nedz]

The problem is that good design practice means that reclassifying the spell is off the table. It's a sloppy way to do it, but it's the right approach (fixing the source of the problem rather than working around it).

But spells have been moved around on several occasions — between editions. In older editions spells were often in two, or more, schools.

It is possible to have a completely different mapping. In 2E (ToM) there were more schools: There were four elemental schools which include Air, Earth, Fire and Water spells from a variety of the standard schools. You could extend this further to create more holistic schools rather than stick with the, somewhat arbitrary, abstract schools. The oriental casters do this to an extent already, but it is extensible.

[Sacrieur]

Ah, so you are describing how any changes to "material X" also changes everything that references "material X". For example if one changes Alternate Form or Alter Self then that change could also effect Wild Shape(references Alternate Form), Polymorph(references Alter Self), and Warshaper(references both Wild Shape and Polymorph). Thus good design dictates that changes made to "material X" are only made with the full knowledge of everything that references "material X". This gets increasingly harder as the number of potential references increases. Once the probability of a mistake grows large enough, it is easier and safer to find another solution (possibly even in spite of other factors like treating symptom vs curing causes).

You've got it!

The playground specializes in optimizing and exploiting stuff. We should know firsthand.

---


But spells have been moved around on several occasions — between editions. In older editions spells were often in two, or more, schools.

It is possible to have a completely different mapping. In 2E (ToM) there were more schools: There were four elemental schools which include Air, Earth, Fire and Water spells from a variety of the standard schools. You could extend this further to create more holistic schools rather than stick with the, somewhat arbitrary, abstract schools. The oriental casters do this to an extent already, but it is extensible.

Which still adheres to the practice, because in between editions you rebuild the core from the ground up.

[Chronos]

Except that, in practice, the developers don't seem to realize that. Consider the "nested extradimensional spaces might be dangerous" warning in Rope Trick, for example: The writers of that spell assumed that that rule was carried forward from 2nd edition, even though it wasn't. Or, what distribution of ability scores do ordinary folks have? Everyone knows that it's 3d6, and adventurers are only 4d6choose3 because they're the cream of the crop... except that ordinary folks getting 3d6 doesn't show up anywhere in the 3rd edition rules.

[almondsAndRain]

Or, what distribution of ability scores do ordinary folks have? Everyone knows that it's 3d6, and adventurers are only 4d6choose3 because they're the cream of the crop... except that ordinary folks getting 3d6 doesn't show up anywhere in the 3rd edition rules.
That rule actually does appear in the Dungeon Master's Guide on page 110, under Elite and Average Characters:
All PCs and all the NPCs described in this section are “elite,” a cut above the average. Elite characters (whether they are PCs or not) have above-average ability scores and automatically get maximum hit points from their first Hit Die. Average characters, on the other hand, have average abilities (rolled on 3d6) and don’t get maximum hit points from their first Hit Die. The monsters described in the Monster Manual are average characters rather than elite ones (though elite monsters also exist). Likewise, some fighters, wizards, and so on are average people rather than elites; they have fewer hit points and lower ability scores than the NPCs described here.